Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 92 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2018 4:25 PM
197 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, GDR, Larni, Meddle, PaulK, Stile, Tangle (8 members, 189 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,402 Year: 19,225/29,783 Month: 1,170/2,043 Week: 215/507 Day: 43/83 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
188189190
191
192193Next
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Percy
Member
Posts: 18004
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 2851 of 2887 (832713)
05-08-2018 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2816 by 14174dm
05-06-2018 10:28 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
14174dm writes:

But the tops of the layers above the sags are horizontal? Where is the sag above the channel?

Are you referring to this diagram:

If that's the right diagram then Faith referred to sags, too, but I couldn't find them. I asked her to point out where the sags were, but she never replied. Could you describe where they are? Thanks.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2816 by 14174dm, posted 05-06-2018 10:28 PM 14174dm has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2852 by Faith, posted 05-08-2018 7:07 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30252
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 2852 of 2887 (832715)
05-08-2018 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2851 by Percy
05-08-2018 6:44 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
There aren't any sags in this diagram. I was thinking of areas like the Michigan basin and the Texas/Gulf area where the cross sections clearly show the strata of many "time periods" all sagging together into a huge hammock like shape, with a very large salt layer beneath it (I hope I'm remembering this right for the Michigan area, I know it's right for the Gulf area). Many salt domes are rising up through the Gulf strata. I would like to know more about how salt behaves under various conditions and have been reading up on it some.

But in this diagram it looks to me like there isn't enough salt to cause that degree of sagging, and it also may not be the salt that caused the channel as I'd first thought. It still looks like dissolving limestone probably had a lot to do with the formation of the channels but I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2851 by Percy, posted 05-08-2018 6:44 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 2857 by edge, posted 05-08-2018 9:48 PM Faith has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18004
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 2853 of 2887 (832716)
05-08-2018 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2817 by NoNukes
05-06-2018 11:11 PM


Re: Some points I felt like answering
NoNukes writes:

Really, no kidding. You didn't happen to jot down the figures when you did this analysis, did you?

I think it is generally accepted that dogs are one of the most varied species on earth. Not much point in nitpicking this one.

Varied genetically? What Faith said in Message 2711 that I was replying to was about genetic diversity:

Faith in Message 2711 writes:

...but dogs nevertheless have enormous genetic diversity compared to other species today,...

There are many dog breeds, but breeding reduces genetic diversity. Creating more breeds cannot create new alleles and might eliminate alleles from any new breed. That is, breeding cannot increase genetic diversity, and so dogs cannot be any more genetically diverse than wolves. I don't know how the genetic diversity of wolves compares to other species, but I'll go out on a limb and just flatly state that the gray wolf does not have "enormous genetic diversity compared to other species today," and if it doesn't then the dog doesn't.

Concerning possible mutational contributions to dog diversity, there hasn't been enough time for mutations to meaningfully increase it unless dogs descended from wolves much longer ago than ten or fifteen thousand years. My bet is that the total genetic diversity of dogs across all breeds must be less than that of the gray wolf from which it is descended, though the success of efforts to exterminate the wolf in some regions over the past couple hundred years could possibly have negatively influenced modern wolf diversity.

I did do a couple quick Google searches to make sure my brain hasn't jumped the tracks in thinking that dog diversity can't be that different from wolf diversity. Doggie Diversity is very non-technical, but a quick scan revealed it consistent with my thinking that dog diversity isn't anything to rave about. The canine genome is technical and looks interesting, though it doesn't look like it attempts anything quantitative about relative dog/wolf diversity. Analysis of Genetic Variation in 28 Dog Breed Populations With 100 Microsatellite Markers says in passing:

quote:
Further, it is estimated that just 0.2% of the genome differs between the domestic dog and the gray wolf.
(Wayne 1993). Extrapolated to the domestic dog, just a small fraction of the genome would be responsible for breed differences.

I don't think this warrants any more time, so I'm going to move on. But as far as Faith's claim that the dog has "enormous genetic diversity compared to other species today", that's total hogwash. Like most everything Faith says, it's made up. If Faith would like to prove me wrong then she can toss us a bone, so to speak, and provide some of the numbers from her analysis.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2817 by NoNukes, posted 05-06-2018 11:11 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18004
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 2854 of 2887 (832717)
05-08-2018 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 2819 by Faith
05-07-2018 9:59 AM


Re: no supergenome
No problem - none of us are perfect. I didn't understand your last sentence:

I nevertheless think it's important to make the equation.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2819 by Faith, posted 05-07-2018 9:59 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18004
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 2855 of 2887 (832718)
05-08-2018 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 2820 by Faith
05-07-2018 10:03 AM


Re: The fossils as evidence for the Flood
Faith writes:

I do wish it would be acknowledged that just because my views have been "rebutted" doesn't mean the rebuttal is automatically correct, Good grief.

This is a spurious but highly ironic objection. You're responding to a complaint that you ignore responses by ignoring it and going off about something else.

The way discussion between two people ideally works is that one person makes a point, the other person rebuts it, the first person rebuts the rebuttal, the other person rebuts that rebuttal, and so forth and so on.

Discussion with you often doesn't work that way. What often happens is that you make a point or a claim or an assertion or whatever, someone rebuts it, and you ignore it. Then in a later post you make the same point again as if no one had ever rebutted it, so someone rebuts it again, and you ignore it. Then in a later post you make the same point yet again as if no one had ever rebutted it,...etc...

That you do this constantly is the complaint. You also do this brazenly, openly telling whoever happens to raise your ire (me in this particular thread) that you're ignoring them without regard to the quality of their arguments. But I would like to express my thanks for not totally ignoring me.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2820 by Faith, posted 05-07-2018 10:03 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2858 by Faith, posted 05-09-2018 4:32 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4450
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


(2)
Message 2856 of 2887 (832719)
05-08-2018 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 2848 by Faith
05-08-2018 9:12 AM


Re: the strata again
How does a formation preserve a topography?

It buries the topography, fills in the lows until the area is flat again.

But the odds of their being preserved/fossilized is extremely remote.

Preservation is uncommon, but locally very abundant.

By the way I've been wondering why all that vegetation ended up in the Carboniferous "period" where it turned into coal, while I gather the strata in which the dinosaurs are buried don't have much vegetation though ...

How come?

We have dinosaur tracks in coal seams. The fact that they got preserved in rapidly deposited sand bars is no freak accident.

... of all animals they would have needed a prodigious amount of it.

There are plenty of plant fossils in the Cretaceous and Paleogene rocks that I have drilled.

There's no problem of course on the Flood model since the "Carboniferous" is merely a layer where the vegetation got deposited and not a time period, but it doesn't make a lot of sense on the Geo Time Scale model that so much is found there and not with the dinosaurs.

That is a silly notion. You are saying that entire swamps with dinosaur tracks and all, are somehow picked up by a turbulent fludde, transported on a tempestuous sea, and then gently deposited, en masse, by a receding sea in which waves don't tear up the organic mass?

Not gonna work...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2848 by Faith, posted 05-08-2018 9:12 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2859 by Faith, posted 05-09-2018 7:39 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4450
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 2857 of 2887 (832720)
05-08-2018 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 2852 by Faith
05-08-2018 7:07 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
There aren't any sags in this diagram. I was thinking of areas like the Michigan basin and the Texas/Gulf area where the cross sections clearly show the strata of many "time periods" all sagging together into a huge hammock like shape, with a very large salt layer beneath it (I hope I'm remembering this right for the Michigan area, I know it's right for the Gulf area). Many salt domes are rising up through the Gulf strata. I would like to know more about how salt behaves under various conditions and have been reading up on it some.
But in this diagram it looks to me like there isn't enough salt to cause that degree of sagging,

There is not enough to form salt domes. For that you need a certain amount of mass to create the buoyancy necessary to penetrate the upper sediments. However, you will get sags and pinches that wouldn't show up on a large cross section. On the other hand, if a large enough area of salt were dissolved, you could get some subsidence.

... and it also may not be the salt that caused the channel as I'd first thought.

Likely not. The presence of sand channels and gravel suggest that it was stream erosion.

It still looks like dissolving limestone probably had a lot to do with the formation of the channels but I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it.

Usually, it is pretty easy to recognize cavern development. And it is commonly filled by clay rather than stream sediments.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2852 by Faith, posted 05-08-2018 7:07 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2860 by Faith, posted 05-09-2018 7:59 AM edge has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30252
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 2858 of 2887 (832724)
05-09-2018 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 2855 by Percy
05-08-2018 8:59 PM


Re: The fossils as evidence for the Flood
The way discussion between two people ideally works is that one person makes a point, the other person rebuts it, the first person rebuts the rebuttal, the other person rebuts that rebuttal, and so forth and so on.

Discussion with you often doesn't work that way

You know what. The thing is I'm sick to death of constant rebutting and rebutting and rebutting. Misinterpretations, straw man rebuttals, insults galore on both sides. Sick of it. And don't call this a "discussion."

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2855 by Percy, posted 05-08-2018 8:59 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30252
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 2859 of 2887 (832726)
05-09-2018 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 2856 by edge
05-08-2018 9:39 PM


whole worlds in a rock?
How does a formation preserve a topography?

It buries the topography, fills in the lows until the area is flat again.

So it's not a formation at that point, it's just a lot of dirt? The dirt covers the topography and eventually flattens it out? If it fills in the lows I do kind of wonder how flattening it would happen, by which I suppose you mean flatten to the point of having a really very flat surface? Still buried? If it actually "preserved" the topography I'd expect the hills and valleys themselves to be preserved, so how is flattening it out preserving it? And how do you know any of this? By examing a rock? Are thete two different kinds of stuff in the rock, whatever the topography is composed of and whatever the stuff that flattens it is composed of? Oh but that is the formation itself? Guess I'm not picturing this.

But the odds of their being preserved/fossilized is extremely remote.

Preservation is uncommon, but locally very abundant.

Oh, like where there is a muddy lake or something that dinosaurs trip and fall into? Abundantly? And is this part of the topography that got preserved or something else?

By the way I've been wondering why all that vegetation ended up in the Carboniferous "period" where it turned into coal, while I gather the strata in which the dinosaurs are buried don't have much vegetation though ...

How come?
We have dinosaur tracks in coal seams.

Coal seams where?

The fact that they got preserved in rapidly deposited sand bars is no freak accident.

Is "rapidly deposited sand bars" related to the coal seams or something else, and I'm sure they aren't now sand bars but something in a rock you interpret as sand bars? Is this still about dinosaurs or what?

... of all animals they would have needed a prodigious amount of it.

There are plenty of plant fossils in the Cretaceous and Paleogene rocks that I have drilled.

OK thanks for the information, "plenty" of vegetation in those rocks. Probably nowhere near as much as in the Carboniferous though?

There's no problem of course on the Flood model since the "Carboniferous" is merely a layer where the vegetation got deposited and not a time period, but it doesn't make a lot of sense on the Geo Time Scale model that so much is found there and not with the dinosaurs.

That is a silly notion. You are saying that entire swamps with dinosaur tracks and all, are somehow picked up by a turbulent fludde, transported on a tempestuous sea, and then gently deposited, en masse, by a receding sea in which waves don't tear up the organic mass?

Not gonna work..

If there's a lot of plant life in the dinosaur era rocks that's fine with me, I had the wrong idea I guess. But again, you aren't talking about a real swamp of course, you are talking about something in a rock you interpret as formerly a swamp, right? Why do you reify such things? Why not just say exactly what you see in the rock instead of treating a mere interpretation as if it was a reality right before your eyes, as if you were describing a swamp such as exists now on the earth? That's mystification, questionable science. I have no idea what you are seeing in the rock so I have no idea how the Flood might explain its being there.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2856 by edge, posted 05-08-2018 9:39 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2861 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2018 8:11 AM Faith has responded
 Message 2865 by edge, posted 05-09-2018 9:03 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30252
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 2860 of 2887 (832727)
05-09-2018 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 2857 by edge
05-08-2018 9:48 PM


Re: Ancient beaches and seas, no
There aren't any sags in this diagram. I was thinking of areas like the Michigan basin and the Texas/Gulf area where the cross sections clearly show the strata of many "time periods" all sagging together into a huge hammock like shape, with a very large salt layer beneath it (I hope I'm remembering this right for the Michigan area, I know it's right for the Gulf area). Many salt domes are rising up through the Gulf strata. I would like to know more about how salt behaves under various conditions and have been reading up on it some.

But in this diagram it looks to me like there isn't enough salt to cause that degree of sagging,

There is not enough to form salt domes. For that you need a certain amount of mass to create the buoyancy necessary to penetrate the upper sediments.

Yes, thanks, I was thinking that the amount played a role in this, but more in the sagging of the strata. In fact that's a question I have, how the salt causes that sagging or subsidence?

About the formation of salt domes, I've read that it is the difference in weight between the salt and the upper strata that is the cause of the penetration of the salt up through the strata. But then I read a geology site that said that's wrong, that the salt wouldn't rise just because of that difference, or its buoyancy alone, there would have to be weak spots in the strata. Are you familiar with this controversy and what is your position on it if so?

However, you will get sags and pinches that wouldn't show up on a large cross section. On the other hand, if a large enough area of salt were dissolved, you could get some subsidence.

Is subsidence the same thing as what I'm calling sagging? And how does the dissolving of the salt cause the subsidence? I was thinking maybe the salt was originally part of the strata themselves and precipitated down through it to be collected beneath it somehow which somehow causes the sagging/subsidence? Or is it already a layer below the strata and when that dissolves the strata sink?

... and it also may not be the salt that caused the channel as I'd first thought.

Likely not.

Nice to see that my thinking is in tune with geology's on a point or two.

The presence of sand channels and gravel suggest that it was stream erosion.

Because this whole diagram shows deposited flat describably single-sediment layers (as indicated by the key) and nothing that looks like earth surface into which these channels are cut, if it is best explained by streams then they must have occurred after the strata were in place.

It still looks like dissolving limestone probably had a lot to do with the formation of the channels but I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it.

Usually, it is pretty easy to recognize cavern development. And it is commonly filled by clay rather than stream sediments.

Of course if clay didn't happen to be handy but sand was then wouldn't you get sand filling it? However this just keeps reminding me of the Temple Butte "riverbed" that was filled with a different limestone from that of the Redwall above it and the Muav below it. That channel was cut into limestone and so are these -- or most of them, now I'm going to have to go look at it again to be sure so I'm sure I'll be back with an edit. If it's cut into limestone that COULD suggest that some kind of chemical solvent was involved, couldn't it? But if it was just a stream then I'd assume the limestones were still wet from recent deposition at least.

Probably back with an edit soon.

ABE: OK, the channels are cut into both limestone and sand, so streams after deposition while they were still wet seems the best interpretation to me now.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2857 by edge, posted 05-08-2018 9:48 PM edge has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14571
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 2861 of 2887 (832728)
05-09-2018 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 2859 by Faith
05-09-2018 7:39 AM


Dinosaur tracks in coal....
...are found in Utah as explained here
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2859 by Faith, posted 05-09-2018 7:39 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2871 by Faith, posted 05-09-2018 9:40 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18004
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 2862 of 2887 (832730)
05-09-2018 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 2822 by Faith
05-07-2018 11:08 AM


Re: The fossils as evidence for the Flood
What a load of crap.

Faith writes:

I thought I answered this idea that the depth would have been the same by saying a lot of the stratified sediment left by the Flood came from the ocean itself,...

Most strata are marine. If the sediments for the marine strata originated in the oceans then there's a big problem with sandstone and slate/shale. These are coastal and near-coastal sediments. There isn't enough coastline in the world, and particularly not around Pangaea which had much less coastline than the world today, to provide all the sediment necessary for creating all the sandstone and shale/slate strata we see today.

For some reason you never find numbers persuasive, maybe you're just not a math person, but I'm going to do some math anyway. Total length of the world's coastline today is 221,000 miles (Google). I can't find a figure for Pangaea, but whatever its total coastline length was, it was much less than today. So I'll use the current figure because it's most favorable to your scenario.

These sand and silt/mud/clay deposits had only 2000 years to accumulate between creation and the flood, so to be most favorable to your scenario we'll assume a massive accumulation rate of a meter per thousand years. Contemporary figures are a few centimeters per thousand years, so I'm using a figure at least ten times greater than current rates. Using this figure of a meter of sediments per thousand years, the total depth of sand and silt/mud/clay deposits was 2 meters at the beginning of the flood.

We'll assume that sand deposits extend a mile off the coast, and that silt/mud/clay deposits extend an additional 10 miles off the coast.

The total volume of sand deposits in the world when the Flood began is 2 meters multiplied by 221,000 miles of coastline multiplied by 1 mile in extent from the coast out to sea. That is 442,000 cubic miles of sand sediment.

The total volume of silt/mud/clay deposits in the world when the Flood began is 2 meters multiplied by 221,000 miles of coastline multiplies by 10 miles in extent from where the sand deposits end and further out to sea, which is 4,420,000 cubic miles of silt/mud/clay sediment.

Adding together the volumes of all sand and silt/mud/clay deposits when the flood began, we take the 442,000 cubic miles of sand and add it tothe 4,420,000 cubic miles of silt/mud/clay to get a total of 4,862,000 cubic miles of available sediments for the Flood to redistribute to the land. I'll round this up to 4.9 million cubic miles, again, more favorable to your scenario.

Total world land area today is about 200 million square miles, and average elevation of land is about a half mile, so that tells us there are about 100 million cubic miles of strata on land.

So subtracting the total volume of sand/silt/mud/clay deposits of 4.9 million cubic miles from the total land strata volume of 100 million cubic miles we get 95.1 million cubic miles of strata we can't account for.

Limestone is 11% of all strata. 11% of 100 million cubic miles is 11 million cubic miles, so we subtract that from the 95.1 million cubic miles and get 84.1 million cubic miles of strata remaining to be accounted for. Terrestrial strata are much less common than marine strata, but we'll use a figure highly favorable to your scenario, 5 million cubic miles of terrestrial strata (there couldn't have been much more - pile terrestrial strata too deep and it will lithify, making it impossible for the rain to wash it into the sea). We subtract this 5 million cubic miles from the remaining 84.1 million cubic miles and get 79.1 million cubic miles of unaccounted for strata.

This 79.1 million cubic miles of unaccounted for strata disproves your idea that the sediments that the flood deposited on land came primarily from the sea. While these calculations are all just ballpark approximations, all figures were biased in favor of your scenario. In particular don't forget I used the length of the modern coastline, not of the Pangaea coastline which would have been much less than the modern figure.

...and that I'd assume the enormous amount of vegetation on the land would have contributed to the looseness of the soil there. Big trees have deep roots.

This is a strange thing to say. Where I live anything growing in the ground is in pretty solid soil. I just removed about 1000 small white pines growing along the driveway. The break in the tree line created by the driveway encouraged their growth, and after 30 years they had become a nuisance, blocking our view of the road and tilting over into the driveway in the snow, blocking the driveway and turning clearing the driveway of snow into a major exercise because we first had to shake the snow off the white pines so they'd straighten up and get out of the way.
They ranged in height from a few inches to 10 feet.

When we could we just grabbed them firmly and pulled them out of the ground. It was hard work. Any white pine taller than a few feet had a big enough root system to put up a determined fight. Many that were taller than 6 feet could not be pulled from the ground, so we cut them off as close to ground level as possible. The ground around this dense growth of white pine was by no means loose.

Don't you have trees where you live? If so, is the soil loose around your trees? Can you just walk right up to them and just yank them out of the ground or just push them over? I wouldn't think so.

This claim of looseness of soil due to big trees and an "enormous amount of vegetation" seems like nonsense.

But the claim is irrelevant anyway because vegetation and trees only affect the very topmost layer of soil. You don't say what the average elevation of land was before the flood, but it's not really important since any figure you gave would be made up, but even the deepest roots wouldn't extend deeper than 10 feet. Shrubs and trees only affect the very topmost portion of land.

Summing up, there wasn't enough sediment in the seas to provide sufficient material for all the strata we see on land today, not even close. And plants and trees don't loosen soil, and even if they did it would be the very topmost layer of soil.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2822 by Faith, posted 05-07-2018 11:08 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2863 by jar, posted 05-09-2018 8:55 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 2864 by Faith, posted 05-09-2018 9:03 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 2863 of 2887 (832731)
05-09-2018 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2862 by Percy
05-09-2018 8:38 AM


around trees
There is yet another small problem with Faith's scenario. There are living trees today, even right here in the US, that have been here and growing since before the Biblical Flood. And amazingly, we can see trees all over the world that continue to grow even when soil levels build up around them.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2862 by Percy, posted 05-09-2018 8:38 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30252
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 2864 of 2887 (832733)
05-09-2018 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 2862 by Percy
05-09-2018 8:38 AM


Re: The fossils as evidence for the Flood
I keep being amazed at how what seems to me to be a simple and merely hypothetical way of explaining something becomes the occasion for a conniption fit denouncing me in some way.

I was answering the claim that there were more sediments on the land after the Flood than before by suggesting that the oceans supplied the difference, I was thinking of the huge limestone layers in particular. I have no idea if any of your angry cogitations actually answered my guess,

And I was also answering this other claim that the land would have been too rocky to become loose sediments to fill the water and then form the strata, by suggesting that the enormous amount of vegetation thought to have characterized the pre-Flood period could have kept it loose. Deep roots for one thing should prevent lithification. You don't think so? How about all the organic matter that would have become mixed with the soil? You don't think so?

Nobody was there, after all, everything is a guess or an estimate or a speculation or a hypothetical, including your blitz of calculations. I'm doing my best to imagine what circumstances might have applied, I probably don't even consider most of it crucial to anything about the Flood. So where is your conniption fit coming from?

Not where I live now, but where I lived thirty years ago a gigantic olive tree on the edge of our yard simply fell over in the night due to heavy rain that loosened its roots from the soil. The tree was forty or fifty feet tall.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2862 by Percy, posted 05-09-2018 8:38 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 2866 by JonF, posted 05-09-2018 9:04 AM Faith has responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4450
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


(2)
Message 2865 of 2887 (832734)
05-09-2018 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 2859 by Faith
05-09-2018 7:39 AM


Re: whole worlds in a rock?
If there's a lot of plant life in the dinosaur era rocks that's fine with me, I had the wrong idea I guess. But again, you aren't talking about a real swamp of course, you are talking about something in a rock you interpret as formerly a swamp, right? Why do you reify such things? Why not just say exactly what you see in the rock instead of treating a mere interpretation as if it was a reality right before your eyes, as if you were describing a swamp such as exists now on the earth?

So, you have a better explanation. I haven't heard it yet.

And you're not talking about a real flood, are you?

Isn't it just something written as an ancient story that you force-fit evidence to?

That's mystification, questionable science. I have no idea what you are seeing in the rock so I have no idea how the Flood might explain its being there.

Not at all. It's all out there for you to learn. You simply refuse to. Making up stories is more your style. And it's a lot easier, too.

I'm not sure how you have any idea what science is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2859 by Faith, posted 05-09-2018 7:39 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 2867 by Faith, posted 05-09-2018 9:12 AM edge has not yet responded
 Message 2869 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2018 9:18 AM edge has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
188189190
191
192193Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018